Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

[Carolina Girl]

OK, they say she served her probation in jail. It can not be counted with time served on a sentence. She was sentenced to 412 days served on the check charges. One year probation on the check charges. That is 777 days roughly. She was sentenced to 4 years on the lying charges. That is another 1460 days. Total time for probation and time to serve is 2237 days. If the probation can not count if she is serving a sentence, then they can not count those days for probation AND time for one of the lying charges. So she owes the state of Florida AT least one more year behind bars. But was the 412 days counted over again as well?
She was sentenced to over 6 years time and probation. She did not come close to that.
Yes, I have to agree this is a mess. But what am I missing here? I know time off for good behavior(passing letters must be okay?) but not that much time off.

Sorry to quote myself, but I was passed over? If this needs to be asked somewhere else, please advise me where. TYIA

 

[Katprint]

Sorry to quote myself, but I was passed over? If this needs to be asked somewhere else, please advise me where. TYIA

Whether time served on the check fraud/theft/forgery sentences charges was double-counted towards the false statements to law enforcement sentences which should have been served consecutively or whether the judge ordered ALL of the sentences from both incidents to be served concurrently, and the calculation of how much "good time" credit Casey earned (especially since she is known to have violated jail rules on multiple occasions) towards the sentences, and whether Casey could have served her probation while still in custody, are all currently disputed issues. We will know the answer when we hear the final ruling(s) from the appellate court.

The short answer is: It is within the power and authority of the judge to order sentences on different crimes to be served concurrently i.e. all at the same time, or consecutively i.e. one after another. The judge follows certain sentencing guidelines which are intended to generally equalize punishments for similar crimes depending on the presence/absence of various factors.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[WolfmarsGirl]

I have an off-beat question:

If someone decided to write a fictional-but-factual book about this case, names changed and all, would that person face any legal problems if that person came to a different conclusion that the jury in this case?

I am talking about a complete work of fiction, with fantastic magical qualities like ghosts, ghouls, etc.

Weird, I know, but it seems to work.

Thanks bunches in advance

 

[smurf86]

Thanks guys for the replys I was curious is all.

 

[AZlawyer]

I have an off-beat question:

If someone decided to write a fictional-but-factual book about this case, names changed and all, would that person face any legal problems if that person came to a different conclusion that the jury in this case?

I am talking about a complete work of fiction, with fantastic magical qualities like ghosts, ghouls, etc.

Weird, I know, but it seems to work.

Thanks bunches in advance

The question would be whether the book was defamatory, and it sounds like it wouldn't be. The jury decision of "not guilty" would have no impact on this analysis.

 

[WolfmarsGirl]

The question would be whether the book was defamatory, and it sounds like it wouldn't be. The jury decision of "not guilty" would have no impact on this analysis.

But, if this author were to describe the crime from the point of view that KC did it, and describe an unfortunate, albeit fantasy-like fate for KC in the end, would I, er, I mean, the author, be in trouble? lol...Maybe I should hire an attorney?

Thank you for your help, by the way

 

[Sustained]

As I understand probation, one of the conditions involves telling the truth.
If FCA were to lie under oath in a deposition, could that be considered a VOP ?

 

[AZlawyer]

But, if this author were to describe the crime from the point of view that KC did it, and describe an unfortunate, albeit fantasy-like fate for KC in the end, would I, er, I mean, the author, be in trouble? lol...Maybe I should hire an attorney?

Thank you for your help, by the way

As long as you don't call her Lacey Banthony. :innocent:

This is not legal advice. This is a joke. :seeya: Everyone wave "hi" to the State Bar of AZ....

As I understand probation, one of the conditions involves telling the truth.
If FCA were to lie under oath in a deposition, could that be considered a VOP ?

Actually I don't remember seeing that on her probation order. But many times it's pretty difficult and not worth the trouble to prove someone lied. Let's wait for the depo and see if she says anything that might qualify.

 

[What'sThatClue]

I thought the probation order said that she was to get a job. Now, her attorney says she'll attend online school instead.

Can the probation order (which was upheld) terms ordered by a judge be changed? If so, who can change it? DOC?

Thanks

 

[MiraclesHappen]

I thought the probation order said that she was to get a job. Now, her attorney says she'll attend online school instead.
Can the probation order (which was upheld) terms ordered by a judge be changed? If so, who can change it? DOC?
Thanks

Terms and conditions of probation come from a menu that is provided by statute



948.03 Terms and conditions of probation.—
(1) The court shall determine the terms and conditions of probation. Conditions specified in this section do not require oral pronouncement at the time of sentencing and may be considered standard conditions of probation. These conditions may include among them the following, that the

948.03 Terms and conditions of probation.—
(1) The court shall determine the terms and conditions of probation. Conditions specified in this section do not require oral pronouncement at the time of sentencing and may be considered standard conditions of probation. These conditions may include among them the following, that the probationer or offender in community control shall:
(a) Report to the probation and parole supervisors as directed.
(b) Permit such supervisors to visit him or her at his or her home or elsewhere.
(c) Work faithfully at suitable employment insofar as may be possible.
(d) Remain within a specified place.
(e) Live without violating any law. A conviction in a court of law is not necessary for such a violation of law to constitute a violation of probation, community control, or any other form of court-ordered supervision...
and on & on.......

The Court Order for Probation included certain conditions of probation.
Those conditions are part of a Court order and therefore must stand.

If a probationer wants to alter or remove a condition panic: It's so much of a strain to be ordered to live without violating the law--what else do they want from me, phew)

then that is done by way of motion.
DOC doesn't have the powers to alter Court Orders.
They can add more conditions, make it more demanding.

Above statute says that it doesn't have to be enumerated in the Court Order to become a condition if it is one of the conditions on the statutory menu.
Statutes also make the quest for a GED a mandatory undertaking for the probationer who lacks that diploma. (948.037)

This isn't a trade-off. This for that.
The educational requirement is mandatory.
The employment issue is separate. Statute above gives leeway to probation to decide what's possible relative to employment.

Judge Perry's order highlighted that concept.
The order imposed the work requirement but used language indicating that
it was to be determined by probation. That gives probation discretion to work it out without a need to go before the Court again.


MH:wolf:
sharing an opinion

Bottom line:
Atty :snooty: cannot look at Judge Perry's order and trade in one ordered term for another more desirable condition.

:therethere: It's all flowing pursuant to statute and Order.

 

[logicalgirl]

Terms and conditions of probation come from a menu that is provided by statute



948.03 Terms and conditions of probation.—
(1) The court shall determine the terms and conditions of probation. Conditions specified in this section do not require oral pronouncement at the time of sentencing and may be considered standard conditions of probation. These conditions may include among them the following, that the


The educational requirement is mandatory.
The employment issue is separate. Statute above gives leeway to probation to decide what's possible relative to employment.
( Snipped for space)

Judge Perry's order highlighted that concept.
The order imposed the work requirement but used language indicating that
it was to be determined by probation. That gives probation discretion to work it out without a need to go before the Court again.


MH:wolf:
sharing an opinion

Bottom line:
Atty :snooty: cannot look at Judge Perry's order and trade in one ordered term for another more desirable condition.

:therethere: It's all flowing pursuant to statute and Order.[/COLOR]

Thank you MiraclesHappen - why is the day so much clearer after you've given your answer. Excellent to know it is not a trade off of this for that - and had no idea the GED requirement was mandated.

For every media spin out there by Baez, there is always a large truckload of bullcarp along with it. I just couldn't figure out which part of it was the real bullcarp until I read your answer.

Outstanding clarity as usual. :crush: Thanks!

 

[allycat1208]

Who in Casey's case had to prove whether she was indigent before she was tried? I mean is up to the prosecutor, the judge, the defendant himself or someone else to declare that a defendant is indigent and does this have to researched by looking into their assets or this is just accepted as to what the defendant claims?

 

[AZlawyer]

Who in Casey's case had to prove whether she was indigent before she was tried? I mean is up to the prosecutor, the judge, the defendant himself or someone else to declare that a defendant is indigent and does this have to researched by looking into their assets or this is just accepted as to what the defendant claims?

The judge made the decision. IIRC the decision was based primarily on declarations by Casey and her attorneys. The judge has discretion to require additional evidence, and I believe in this case HHJS did require some additional information, but I can't remember what it was.

 

[logicalgirl]

The judge made the decision. IIRC the decision was based primarily on declarations by Casey and her attorneys. The judge has discretion to require additional evidence, and I believe in this case HHJS did require some additional information, but I can't remember what it was.

Ah - AZLawyer - wasn't it an "in camera" or confidential look at Baez's (cough, cough) books or account reconciliation of how the ABC monies were "spent"?

 

[AZlawyer]

Ah - AZLawyer - wasn't it an "in camera" or confidential look at Baez's (cough, cough) books or account reconciliation of how the ABC monies were "spent"?

Yes, I think that was it.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

:gavel:Let me add:

Who in Casey's case had to prove whether she was indigent before she was tried? I mean is up to the prosecutor, the judge, the defendant himself or someone else to declare that a defendant is indigent and does this have to researched by looking into their assets or this is just accepted as to what the defendant claims?

Generally, when a defendant cannot afford counsel, and wants a public defender to be appointed,

a form is filled out. The form is provided in The Rules of Criminal Procedure. The decision is made by a Clerk of the Court. Clerk can investigate the "accuracy" of the application.

It will go before a Judge only if the applicant receives a denial and initiates an appeal of the Clerk's decison.


If you'd like a look at the form: http://www.joffelaw.com/state-rules/3-984.pdf


Casey did an "Indigency for Costs" request.

That is the avenue that is taken when a defendant already has a private attorney on the case.

The defendant claims to be out of money by using the same form that is linked above. :violin:
But this request must be done by way of a written motion which will go before a Judge for a hearing.

The "Costs" wording indicates to us that the defendant has or will have costs associated with the defense, i.e. investigators, experts, the plant whisperer.......

and that also, the defendant has no ability to pay those costs.

The "Motion for Indigency Costs," Casey's motion, was allowed by Judge Strickland back in the day.

The Judge's can and will probe the area of defendant's finances and funds available.

As part of making a decision on that motion, Judge Strickland wanted a detailed accounting and explanation hoh: anic:as to a sum of 200 thousand dollars which was spent by Casey.

The Judge wanted to know exactly how it was spent by the defendant , who had gotten a big chunk of money from ABC :dj: News and had also accumulated funds from other sources. .


rayer: Pleeeze don't make us tell everybody.


The accounting was provided :camera: in camera :camera: and sealed :lipssealed: by the Judge, thereby excluding the media, and the rest of us, from the contents. :laughcry:

:uthere::jumping: Noooo we want to see it!!!!!

This August, motions were filed to unseal those documents and make them public. Should be interesting. :crossfingers:

MH :wolf:
opinion
there is no plant whisperer:ashamed:

 

[Aedrys]

There has been talk of a trust being set up for Casey. Could the DT do this and funnel funds into a trust for her? And then those funds couldn't be touched or used for lawsuits or payments she owes? I don't know much about trusts, but I'm worried the DT has found a loophole to keep Casey indigent legally.

 

[rotterdam]

:gavel:Let me add:









Generally, when a defendant cannot afford counsel, and wants a public defender to be appointed,

a form is filled out. The form is provided in The Rules of Criminal Procedure. The decision is made by a Clerk of the Court. Clerk can investigate the "accuracy" of the application.

It will go before a Judge only if the applicant receives a denial and initiates an appeal of the Clerk's decison.


If you'd like a look at the form: http://www.joffelaw.com/state-rules/3-984.pdf


Casey did an "Indigency for Costs" request.

That is the avenue that is taken when a defendant already has a private attorney on the case.

The defendant claims to be out of money by using the same form that is linked above. :violin:
But this request must be done by way of a written motion which will go before a Judge for a hearing.

The "Costs" wording indicates to us that the defendant has or will have costs associated with the defense, i.e. investigators, experts, the plant whisperer.......

and that also, the defendant has no ability to pay those costs.

The "Motion for Indigency Costs," Casey's motion, was allowed by Judge Strickland back in the day.

The Judge's can and will probe the area of defendant's finances and funds available.

As part of making a decision on that motion, Judge Strickland wanted a detailed accounting and explanation hoh: anic:as to a sum of 200 thousand dollars which was spent by Casey.

The Judge wanted to know exactly how it was spent by the defendant , who had gotten a big chunk of money from ABC :dj: News and had also accumulated funds from other sources. .


rayer: Pleeeze don't make us tell everybody.


The accounting was provided :camera: in camera :camera: and sealed :lipssealed: by the Judge, thereby excluding the media, and the rest of us, from the contents. :laughcry:

:uthere::jumping: Noooo we want to see it!!!!!

This August, motions were filed to unseal those documents and make them public. Should be interesting. :crossfingers:

MH :wolf:
opinion
there is no plant whisperer:ashamed:

I did not see anything on that indigence application for outstanding signed contracts with a deferred payment/royalty/future advances etc.
Or future financial interest in such already executed contracts/agreements as a co-signer.
I would expect that to be under assets, not under income if no income did materialize yet. But under expectancy, only rental expectancy is listed.
There is no "all catcher" like other assets.
Am I missing something?
O/T I also saw nothing about US citizen/resident alien etc , I therefor assume that illegal aliens/tourists can also apply for indigent status.
Also like to piggy back on Aedrys question especially when it involves a 'blind" trust.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

I have been trying to figure out why, this long date after the trial, Casey Anthony's team of lawyers seem to be continuing to support her.

My heart and head tell me that they should, at this point, have fulfilled whatever legal obligation they had to represent her in an indigent status. But my heart and head have no legal experience or knowledge.

At what point does an attorney's obligation officially end when they are defending a client in an indigent status? Isn't this defense team way past that point now? It makes me suspicious of what reason there could be for JB, CM, LF, et al to continue their work at this stage. Any ideas? TIA!

 

[MiraclesHappen]

There has been talk of a trust being set up for Casey. Could the DT do this and funnel funds into a trust for her? And then those funds couldn't be touched or used for lawsuits or payments she owes? I don't know much about trusts, but I'm worried the DT has found a loophole to keep Casey indigent legally.

I did not see anything on that indigence application for outstanding signed contracts with a deferred payment/royalty/future advances etc.
Or future financial interest in such already executed contracts/agreements as a co-signer.
I would expect that to be under assets, not under income if no income did materialize yet. But under expectancy, only rental expectancy is listed.
There is no "all catcher" like other assets.
Am I missing something?
O/T I also saw nothing about US citizen/resident alien etc , I therefor assume that illegal aliens/tourists can also apply for indigent status.
Also like to piggy back on Aedrys question especially when it involves a 'blind" trust.

There are mandatory minimum inquiries that will be made when the indigence application is presented:


Florida Statutes Chapter 27

27.52 Determination of indigent status..
(a) The application must include, at a minimum, the following financial information:
1. Net income, consisting of total salary and wages, minus deductions required by law, including court-ordered support payments.
2. Other income, including, but not limited to, social security benefits, union funds, veterans’ benefits, workers’ compensation, other regular support from absent family members, public or private employee pensions, unemployment compensation, dividends, interest, rent, trusts, and gifts.
3. Assets, including, but not limited to, cash, savings accounts, bank accounts, stocks, bonds, certificates of deposit, equity in real estate, and equity in a boat or a motor vehicle or in other tangible property.
4. All liabilities and debts....


The clerk is empowered to investigate the representations on the application.

Judges (if it's an application for indigent for costs) will also have to be convinced the need is legitimate.

Please keep in mind, Casey isn't exactly the average person seeking a determination of indigence. You'd more likely see people who are from low income backgrounds, or people who have spent everything to fund an addiction, people surviving on the streets....
I'm not judging. I'm saying that the indigence application appears more appropriate in certain circumstances.
But then again, the process is predicated upon the fact that a crime is alleged, a serious crime. Court personnel :sleuth::sleuth: :sleuth:are well aware that they might be dealing with a criminal ut em up: element.
Claims are not accepted at face value. :snowball: Makes as much sense as accepting a check from Casey without making sure....hoh:

Under the law, if the applicant is caught lying on the forms, it is a jailable crime.

The expectancy issue relates to future assets. detective: Casey is there a book deal coming to fruition next week?)
Applicant has to indicate anticipated income, expected acquisition of assets.

About the citizenship:

I have not seen the issue of citizenship play into the request for indigence status.
Law abiding taxpayers can be verry passionate about this financial burden :slapfight:
The issue of citizenship is more likely to surface at a plea. Defendants are advised that in pleading guilty , if not a citizen, they may be subject to consequences. (ET go home.):ufo:

Opinion:wolf:
MH